Tech Forum

I'm preparing some help material about how to transition from classic.lds.org to the current lds.org. Surprisingly, there are quite a few hits to the stake and ward websites section on classic.lds.org.

In order to address concerns and issues users have, I'd like to gather some research before writing the transition material.

If you're using classic (or have an inside perspective with those who do), why are you still using the classic stake and ward websites? Are there features still missing on the new lds.org? Are there other reasons for not transitioning?

The classic site will eventually be sunset. We want every unit using the new site going into 2013.

Well, here are some reasons I go to the classic site:

- The front page of the classic is visible without a login. That gives you some information about the ward, including some upcoming activities. Useful if I need to look at something outside my stake.
- I can use the "Locate a Stake or Ward Home Page" function for some interesting things - like counting the number of YSA wards.
- I will sometimes use Classic to troubleshoot a directory problem. It provides a type of sanity check as to what's going on. Especially when a new version of the new directory is rolled out.
- Between the ability to re-direct to the current directory and calendar, and the "Additional Web Resources", it makes a good "one stop page" for all local needs. That alone could account for the traffic to the classic site. Going to lds.org and "drilling down" just isn't the same.

As far as functionality, other then the list of links, one thing missing from the new directory is a mailing address for the missionaries serving from the ward. Unless we write a newsletter item and keep updating it manually, there's no way for the ward members to know how to address their letters to the missionaries.

Thanks Russell. This is helpful.

On the classic site, one click on "Resources" and I can easily see the contact information for all building schedulers in the stake and what resources they help coordinate.

I would double up on the 'landing page' idea. The current LDS.org is a very good place for an individual to visit, I can go there and find things about my calling, the scriptures, my individual worship, my services, but it doesn't seem to be a very good place that defines the 'Stake' or the 'Ward' - like the classic.lds.org.

The meetinghouse locator sends people to the classic website still when they check on the link for the ward website.

I like the classic website for the newsletter function so much better than the new newsletter. The classic sends an e-mail and people know when to go look for new information.

I like the classic as a website for our ward unlike the new which seems better for individuals as others have posted.

I also like seeing the meeting times in one place for all units in our stake, but I maybe could find that on maps now too, i am not sure.

Thanks

Matt Kemp

mathewkemp wrote:The meetinghouse locator sends people to the classic website still when they check on the link for the ward website.

That's true for now, because there's no other place to send them. There's no other publicly-visible "ward website", as you mentioned in your third point.

mathewkemp wrote:I like the classic website for the newsletter function so much better than the new newsletter. The classic sends an e-mail and people know when to go look for new information.

The classic website doesn't send an email related to news and information items; in that respect it is just like the new newsletter. The classic site does have an e-mail broadcast feature, but it's not connected in any way to news and information items (except that it's under the same heading on the administrator's menu). The new site also has ways to send e-mail (using the Directory, or the Send a Message feature of Leader Resources).

mathewkemp wrote:I like the classic as a website for our ward unlike the new which seems better for individuals as others have posted.

True.

mathewkemp wrote:I also like seeing the meeting times in one place for all units in our stake, but I maybe could find that on maps now too, i am not sure.

That's a good point. Using Maps, it's very easy to see all the meeting times in one place for any particular building, but it's not at all easy to find exactly what buildings are within your stake. You'd need to sign in, show your stake boundaries, set the Layers to show all meetinghouses, and then visually detect which meetinghouses are within your stake boundaries. As you click on each building, you would then see all the meeting times.

A lot of third party websites and blogs that like emphasize local topics (such as your town's travel guide or your scout troop blog) will link to the stake or ward home page as the recommendation to find out about local church units.

The church stands to lose a great source of non-lds referrals when they pull the plug on classic websites.
Also - I notice that the new maps feature still links to the old ward/stake homepage on the meetinghouse locator.

Where do you go if you want more "general" information about a ward/stake/branch.

The biggest one for my ward is current mailing addresses of missionaries from our ward.

This could easily be resolved in a couple of ways - In the new Directory, there is a Missionary section that shows the missionaries assigned to our ward and the missionaries serving from our ward. For those serving from our ward it shows the Mission they are serving in and the boundaries of that mission on a map. It should be fairly simple to display, at the very least, the mission office address of that mission, giving members an address to send to. Another option, but probably more than one reason it is not done - would be to provide a church email address for each missionary here in the Directory where members could click the link and send a quick email the missionary.

failproof, thanks for the feedback. We added an enhancement request to include the mission office address for the missionary. This may or may not be implemented, but it will be evaluated and given more consideration.